Do not make the mistake of thinking that because my conclusion is the same as another person's that my reasoning is the same
The Iraqis are only laying the groundwork for a constitutional convention, but there is already broad agreement on what the constitution should do. It should establish a democratic government, protect minority rights, guarantee the equality of all people (including women) and establish a government that is consistent with Islamic values without being subservient to theocratic law.
Things are also going well because while Americans are making most of the decisions about how Iraq is run now, they are not dominating the constitution-writing process. "It has to be an Iraqi product," a senior Bush administration official insists. And the key Iraqis, especially among the Kurds and Shiites, are sophisticated players, willing to compromise and careful not to abuse one another as they jockey for power. As Noah Feldman, a law professor who served as an independent consultant on the process, observes, people in the Middle East don't always act rationally[P6: That says soooooo much. Much disrespect in there]. But in this case they are, and all sides understand that if the talks fail, the result is mutual assured destruction.…
[P6: Here comes the whole reason for the editorial]There's no way the Iraqis can resolve these issues within six months, the deadline Colin Powell once set. But this process is the ballgame. Washington will continue to get distracted by microscandals about leaks and such…